Top Horror Films that deserve a Sequel

[_____V_____]

Just finished watching the brilliant, yet underrated Altered States (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080360/) which made me feel that this film deserved a top-class sequel, possibly made by Ken Russell himself, if he could. Looking at so many films these days being churned out as sequels from comparatively average/weak offerings, this was one film which could have benefited from a widely released sequel.

I know I would be first in line to see it.


Others which should have had a worthy sequel, IMO -


Shaun of the Dead - Wright/Pegg/Frost did so well with the original. What could the trio conjure for this one? Possibilities are endless.

Grindhouse - Wouldn't mind to see Planet Terror 2 (a chance to catch up with Cherry Darling and her SMOKING leg!) and possibly another story by Tarantino on the lines of Death Race 2000/Vanishing Point, of course interspersed with plenty of more fake trailers.

Unbreakable - The premise itself is really, really good. And there WERE talks of a possible sequel. If only M Night Shyamalan didn't descend into creative madness...

Cloverfield - Regardless of the rumors, will Abrams return to make one? Unlikely, although it has a lot of potential to shape up to be a killer flick.

Trick 'r Treat - Deliciously brilliant anthology which could be taken up by someone as creatively independent as Bryan Singer and turned into a franchise, or at least 2 more parts. I would be the first in line!

In The Mouth Of Madness - Sutter Cane returns! Need I say more?

The Mist - Suppose the second one dealt with a complete fallout and total breakdown of government/defence machinery, as opposed to the climax in the first one? HELL YES!

Burnt Offerings - Imagine another family hiring/purchasing the house and stumbling upon possessed Karen Black in the attic/cellar? Yummy.

Dawn of the Dead (remake) - The ending shown during the credits literally SCREAMS for a potentially superb sequel, but since then Zack Snyder has moved on to other pastures. Will he return for this? Doubtful.

The Thing - MacReady and Childs slowly back away, their cigs hanging from their half-open mouths, as the snow slowly breaks and then explodes in front of them! And then... Guess what? If Carpenter had a vision for this and made it, I bet it would have been as big as what Aliens proved to be after Alien.

The Craft - I might be one of the select few who really enjoyed the first one, and if they had made a sequel to this I would have been all over it.

The Faculty - Again, another flick which I enjoyed tremendously and which had sheer potential to add a super sequel. Too bad Robert Rodriguez moved on to other stuff...

Near Dark - Somehow this fantastic vampire flick got overlooked when the sequel craze began in the late 80s. What a cool flick it could have been!


Will think of more later.

[neverending]

I'm not a fan of sequel-itis. It's rare for a sequel to equal its source. I can think of only one instance- Bride of Frankenstein. In general, sequels are not made for artistic reasons, but instead are monetarily driven. The desire to make a "franchise" out of a work of art in general leads to product that quickly descends into mediocrity.

Particularly when you're dealing with something that has a literary source to begin with- say, a Stephen King novel or a John W. Campbell story- the sequels are not going to be as good as the originals. I'm one who is more inclined to cherish a work of art for what it is, rather than seeing its premise get worked to death.

Sure, there are a couple of series I do care for- Universal's Frankenstein films, Hammer's Frankenstein and Dracula films- but even those ended up being really poor by the end. Endless Freddy, Jason & Michael retreads, Amityville series, Hellraiser... all turned into crap. Most will disagree with me, I'm sure, but that's my opinion.

[The Villain]

Horror Sequels are rarely as good as the original but you do have some good choices there and there are a lot that you mentioned that i would see. I would also love to see a Behind The Mask sequel.

There's really no point of one and it wouldnt be able to follow the same formula and have the same magic as the first one but i got so interested in the character and the story that i dont think i would mind. Maybe they could do something where another camera crew decides to follow him as he goes after the girl from the first one and Leslie could talk about what killers do in sequels and stuff. Although thats kinda venturing into Scream territory and thats not a good route to do down.

[roshiq]

A good film with a great or potential premise or with an open ended finale doesn't have to have/need a sequel to explain or explore more, IMO.

I do see the point for the most of the film people like to talk about for a sequel but one of the main reasons that I think we love all those originals just because the way they are from start to finish. But that doesn't mean I hate sequels. There are plenty of sequels I enjoyed and although they were enjoyable but most of the cases they were unnecessary.

Now here's my "sequel" opinion about the films that V mentioned:

Shaun of the Dead - Yeah, a sequel would be fun too, I guess.

Grindhouse - Nope! Not interested.

Unbreakable - There is a high possibility for the sequel to become "Unbearable"!

Cloverfield - What?! They still haven't start filming the 2nd one?!!

Trick 'r Treat - Yup! I don't even mind for a franchise too.

In The Mouth Of Madness - No need.

The Mist - hummm. I'm not sure,,,

Burnt Offerings - Yeah, may be....then what about The Shining?

Dawn of the Dead (remake) - yeah...Doubtful.

The Thing - Please, No sequel!

The Craft - I need to see it again!

The Faculty - I liked it, it was okay...don't mind for a sequel.

Near Dark - Sure..Sure! Why not? But it'd better if they done a sequel in 80s.

Like to add some more...District 9, Freddy Vs Jason, A straight sequel of 2003 TCM remake, Dr. Phibes rises again, Eden Lake(!), Martyrs (with a sci-fi twist:D), Dog Soldiers, The Host (Korean), Teeth, Dead Silence & Eight Legged Freaks!

[neverending]

Dr. Phibes rises again

How could you wish for a third Phibes film without VINCENT????

[Nini_luv5]

Where I feel somewould benefit, I also fear many of these films would loose their ability to be memorable and our aptness to recall them would falter after a sequel. And being that many sequels are just not good, I fear it would damage the reputation of the original film

The only film I think actually deserves a sequel would be Cloverfield. Because of how it ended. But then again the fact that it did end that way leaves it in your mind, whereas a proposed sequel may not.

[roshiq]

How could you wish for a third Phibes film without VINCENT????

Actually I was thinking there would be even no real Dr. Phibes for the sequel. A copy cat may be....:D

[Ferox13]

Most will disagree with me, I'm sure, but that's my opinion.

I don't - you made some great points.

[_____V_____]

I'm not a fan of sequel-itis. It's rare for a sequel to equal its source. I can think of only one instance- Bride of Frankenstein. In general, sequels are not made for artistic reasons, but instead are monetarily driven. The desire to make a "franchise" out of a work of art in general leads to product that quickly descends into mediocrity.

Particularly when you're dealing with something that has a literary source to begin with- say, a Stephen King novel or a John W. Campbell story- the sequels are not going to be as good as the originals. I'm one who is more inclined to cherish a work of art for what it is, rather than seeing its premise get worked to death.

Sure, there are a couple of series I do care for- Universal's Frankenstein films, Hammer's Frankenstein and Dracula films- but even those ended up being really poor by the end. Endless Freddy, Jason & Michael retreads, Amityville series, Hellraiser... all turned into crap. Most will disagree with me, I'm sure, but that's my opinion.

I believe we went on a tangent here.

I agree with all of your points but the premise of this thread was to identify which standalone films (in one's opinion) could have a killer sequel - assuming the makers, plotlines and most of the original cast were retained.

I was talking about just ONE sequel to the original. Not franchises (except for Trick 'r Treat, which I feel is begging for franchise treatment, if faithfully rendered) nor endless sequels where they take down the entire originality to the ground. I am well aware of those facts.

Geez, talk about burning down wishful thinking in a jiffy!

And there goes the thread... :(

[Nini_luv5]

I believe we went on a tangent here.

I agree with all of your points but the premise of this thread was to identify which standalone films (in one's opinion) could have a killer sequel - assuming the makers, plotlines and most of the original cast were retained.

I was talking about just ONE sequel to the original. Not franchises (except for Trick 'r Treat, which I feel is begging for franchise treatment, if faithfully rendered) nor endless sequels where they take down the entire originality to the ground. I am well aware of those facts.

Geez, talk about burning down wishful thinking in a jiffy!

And there goes the thread... :(

hugs??????

[neverending]

Okay, here is my list of films that should have a sequel:













That's all of them.

[Nini_luv5]

Haha good one ;)

[Elvis_Christ]

The Craft - I might be one of the select few who really enjoyed the first one, and if they had made a sequel to this I would have been all over it.


This flick was killer it's quite overlooked when discussing that era of horror. Eats Twilight for breakfast!


-------

The Prowler needed a equally bloodthirsty sequel. I would've liked to have seen one for Night Of The Creeps too.

Why did Commando never have a sequel? I mean fuck it was the blueprint for the majority of Arnie's flicks up till Terminator 2 and I'm sure it would have been a successful venture. I think Arnie wanted too much cash to do it at the time... damn shame I bet it could've been epic.

A Switchblade Sisters sequel would've been fun.